Disable autostart sequence in a mission

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure there are checklists IRL but from watching some RW pilots (I am not one), they don’t seem use them the way gamers appear to need.

It's different situations. A job vs a hobby.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Obviously they know these procedures by heart and just use the list to confirm after.

Which could be just the same in a sim. I want checklists even for the planes I know inside and out. It's realistic and it's a safety net against human fallibility. Not to mention that since modules are developed over time, it would be nice to have the developers update the lists as changes occur. You wouldn't put it down to the pilot to go looking for what has a changed in a software update and hoping nothing is missed while they make their own corrections.

Another issue is just that the kneeboard system is a bit nebulous. It really should be updated so that you can add things to it from within DCS, rather than only messing with files from the outside.

[SharpeXB]

53 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I want checklists even for the planes I know inside and out.

Well many of the aircraft modules do in fact have checklists. I suspect the reason that some don’t is due to the fact that they’re Early Access. It’s best practice to make your own list anyways as it’s a good learning process. 
 

Again though, why should ED or Devs work to put these checklists in the modules when everyone just presses the cheat keys to start up? See the problem with having cheats?

53 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

It's different situations. A job vs a hobby.

Being quick efficient and accurate is a good thing in both worlds though. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by SharpeXB

[silverdevil]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well many of the aircraft modules do in fact have checklists. I suspect the reason that some don’t is due to the fact that they’re Early Access. It’s best practice to make your own list anyways as it’s a good learning process. 

Being quick efficient and accurate is a good thing in both worlds though. 

“By Failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” – Benjamin Franklin

there is no point, including DCS, to do anything without your best effort.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0813checklist/

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

“By Failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” – Benjamin Franklin

there is no point, including DCS, to do anything without your best effort.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0813checklist/

Don’t use the taxiway as a runway either

[cfrag]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

If nobody uses this it makes me wonder why ED would bother modeling all of it. And then include a cheat to bypass the effort. 

For the same reason they have invulnerability although they model damage, offer 3 minute repairs that are pure magic, don't fail your plane some 25%-50% of the time when you want to go to on a mission because your plane isn't mission ready (that's about the standard fail rate, and can be easily set in mission editor; wait - are you telling me you set your Hornet's fail rate to some unrealistic value below 50%??? Why would the even model that if people don't use it?), they allow you to ignore ground/tower without consequences (then why did they bother implement it - even if it's as bad as it is today), and most importantly, allow you fly a new hornet immediately after you crashed one: to make the game playable, and more attractive, to greater audience.

Oh, and in my entire life I have *never* started a (civilian) aircraft without a checklist in hand. A vendor-provided, EASA/BAZL-approved list, mind you, not DIY. I want to live.

 

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Oh, and in my entire life I have *never* started a (civilian) aircraft without a checklist in hand. A vendor-provided, EASA/BAZL-approved list, mind you, not DIY. I want to live.

A pilot uses the checklist to confirm what they already know, not as instruction to tell them what to do. After all there are certainly no RW pilots as noobish as most gamers are. I’m not talking about the presence of checklist but the manner in which they’re used. I think the goal for gamers should be to get from noobish to realistic. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Why would the even model that if people don't use it?

That was a rhetorical question. But yes, why indeed include all this if it goes unused? Why include checklists in the modules if nearly all the players just use the cheat keys? It’s already disturbing that the Hornet only comes with one cold-start mission other than the dedicated cold-start one. 
I’m surprised DCS continues to survive

[cfrag]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I think the goal for gamers should be to get from noobish to real. 

I think the goal for gamers should be to have fun any which way they please. One way may be to become proficient in starting their plane. I find that part tedious, and skip that as often as not. I enjoy the flying part. Pushing the right buttons in the right order you can train a monkey to do.

Edited September 10, 2022 by cfrag

[Dangerzone]

On 9/11/2022 at 5:42 AM, SharpeXB said:

Why include checklists in the modules if nearly all the players just use the cheat keys?

One point would be attention to detail. I love this about DCS. (Yes - they don't always get it right) - but they're striving to pay attention to detail. DCS is a niche market which is highly commendable. It's both a simulator, but also a game. From the simulator stand point - this shows that they're enthusiastic about making it as authentic as they possibly can.  Nearly all players don't use DCS-BIOS either - but I'm darn grateful that it can work with DCS for those who are fortunate enough to have the cash, the room, and the time to build their own simpits.

I'm just wondering where you get the info to state "if nearly all the players just use the cheat keys". That's not the impression I've gleaned from the community I fly with. I'd say I would struggle to be confident to guess correctly whether more people do manual startup, or auto, so my first guess would be 50/50.

 

On 9/11/2022 at 5:44 AM, cfrag said:

Pushing the right buttons in the right order you can train a monkey to do.

 

Or a macro. 

I usually go through the startup manually on the aircraft I fly the most. (It's far quicker than autostart. If auto-start was faster or just as fast, my laziness would probably win out and I'd auto-start more often- so I think that auto-start being slower than manual start is probably the best implementation/compromise that we can actually have of it. DCS has done a great job there).

However, my name is Dangerzone and I am a DCS addict. I own too many modules (and I plan on buying more ).

As such.. I don't have the memory retention to memorise the start procedure for them all. It's nice to jump in a module I haven't flown in 6 months on a cold start MP server and know that I'm able to get the bird started using autostart and can just concentrate on the systems. If I was forced to manual start all my modules - truth is I wouldn't own as many as I do, and I probably wouldn't be as quick to purchase as many new ones in the future either because some of my purchases I know are going to be for the odd occasion, not an all often one. (Considering I primarily play on cold start servers). 

I can't help think I'm not alone here. That many players manual-start modules they use the most but have other modules they auto-start because they enjoy some variety on the odd occasion. As such - I believe Auto-start was a smart move on DCS's behalf.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Dangerzone

[MAXsenna]

I don't give a rats as if users use autostart or whatever. People do what they want, and I can relate to real pilots that do push buttons for a living.

No clues about numbers, can only answer for my self. I don't even know the keybind. I think I pushed it by accidents once. That messed up everything. If I ever was to use it, I would definitely make my own macro. But DCS wouldn't be DCS for ME!  

Cheers! 

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

I'm just wondering where you get the info to state "if nearly all the players just use the cheat keys". That's not the impression I've gleaned from the community I fly with. I'd say I would struggle to be confident to guess correctly whether more people do manual startup, or auto, so my first guess would be 50/50.

What happens when that ratio reaches 90/10? Already you can see that the Hornet for example only comes with a single cold start mission besides the dedicated one. All the other missions and campaign that comes with it feature hot starts including some DLC campaigns. So you can see right there that ED figures nobody will start up the aircraft. 

[cfrag]

45 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What happens when that ratio reaches 90/10? Already you can see that the Hornet for example only comes with a single cold start mission besides the dedicated one.

It's probably an indication that cold starts are considered a necessity, but not a vital in-game feature. If you take the totality of all MP players, we'll also have to count in the missions that offer hot starts, so I'd (without any numerical base) guess that the share of people actually always doing their own manual starts on MP servers to be around 30% - the rest auto-starts or hot-starts.

It's important that DCS offers a full, comprehensive start-up procedure to show that they correctly model the aircraft's systems (put differently: by looking at the startup-procedure and intentionally screwing it up, I can gauge how well the systems are modelled. A fully modelled start-up proc is more a badge of honor/mark of sim quality than anything else; executing it does not require skill at all, just memory. Flying the plane is where the skill comes in, and that doesn't require a start-up at all as is evidenced by hot-start).

A realistic cold-start procedure is IMHO not an essential element for every player to enjoy the game, so they rightly make it optional. It is an essential sim quality gauge, though.

Edited September 12, 2022 by cfrag

[shagrat]

Am 29.8.2022 um 19:16 schrieb cfrag:

Interesting thought experiment, but such a script would not be able to tell the difference if the fuel probe was extended because the player pressed the switch, or because the auto-start script extended it - the auto-start script also generates all the required button events with the required pauses in-between. Same goes for a Voice-Attack script or other macro (just for the heck of it, I programmed a start-up macro for the Huey. Simple). And there is macro software that can record your keypresses in real-time, and then re-play them on-demand. So you'll only ever need to teach it the procedure once. Since these inputs come from the input buffer, there's no way to tell them apart from the real thing.

If there's one thing that is for sure, it's that the moment that auto-start is suppressed in missions, non-integrity-breaking auto-start-scripts become available for download roughly a minute later. If Voice Attack and VAICOM can do it today, so can many others tomorrow at latest. "A lost cause, this one is" 

Basically the most valid argument. If you "disable" autostarts on the server, there will be people who build there own "autostart"... or more likely, just leave the server, resulting in the usual "we can't find enough players to fill a proper mission package".

But hey, in the end it's up to the server admin.

I don't see the point, as already pointed out. If people use autostarts to get airborne faster, they usually are in for a nasty surprise. Plus I have had the occasional crash/disconnect/mess up with someone spawning into my plane... Usually after 20 min startup, prepping Waypoints etc. and blame me, I tend to use autostart, as well, after the second or third f... up, I had no part in, to not waste all my precious playtime with repeating the startup sequence, watching the sun setting in the west.

But that's just me. 

[Dangerzone]

12 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

What happens when that ratio reaches 90/10? Already you can see that the Hornet for example only comes with a single cold start mission besides the dedicated one. All the other missions and campaign that comes with it feature hot starts including some DLC campaigns. So you can see right there that ED figures nobody will start up the aircraft. 

I don't see right there that ED figures nobody will start up the aircraft. Just the fact that Wags puts out how to start up video's is evidence against your conclusion. They obviously think that there are enough people interested in cold starts out there to warrant making such video's. Campaigns are just one small part of the DCS community. I've only ever played one myself.

Honestly - but sincerely respectfully, I think statements such as "Nearly all players use cheat keys" and "ED figures nobody will start up the aircraft" aren't helpful as they come across as guesswork made out to be facts. 

As for how people fly - I think there's enough evidence that it's extremely varied. I fly with people that not only do the full startup procedures - they've got the emergency procedures in place. Where I get to a stage where I punch out because the aircraft is going down- some of these players are clicking switches I have no idea what they do (even though I do cold startups on those machines), trying to get engines back online, put out fires, etc to see if they can limp the plane back home. (And they're still looking forward to the crash barrier on the supercarrier).

If the cold start procedures were not to be implemented, neither would these features. The whole point of a full fidelity module is to allow people to go to the nth degree if they desire - but in order to reach a larger audience you need to allow for a wider range of play types for those that don't want to invest that amount into it. Restrict this to only those who play how you do - and you're going to find DCS first getting far more expensive, then non-viable, and then non-existant. The more players we have on DCS even if they don't play the same as what we do or like - the better for everyone. 

For myself - if I had to learn the startup procedure when I first played, I wouldn't have spent the ridiculous amount I have now on DCS. It would have been put in the too hard basket. The fact that I could start with hotkeys, do some flying, and then slowly learn the systems but still join in with other people was what drew me in (and then hooked me). Others I fly with just hot-start because they have limited time but want to join in with us and the spare time they have for learning they want to put into learning a system that will help the community they fly with so they can be an effective wingman, etc. If we restricted it to just one set of features - the group I fly with would significantly reduce in size and probably struggle to survive. Instead I get to fly with great blokes that fly well, respectful, do coms correctly, etc - but some auto-start and others go through the whole procedure. 

The variety of people and options is what helps DCS to survive, and grow. 

Anyway - I think we've gone waaaay OT by now.    I'd be interested to know if anyone who still thinks this is a good option has gone to the effort of making a script to support this.

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

I don't see right there that ED figures nobody will start up the aircraft. Just the fact that Wags puts out how to start up video's is evidence against your conclusion. 

See the contradiction? ED builds full systems modules. Wags makes videos. But the game itself only includes one mission with a cold start. Sure users can make macros but it’s silly for the devs to defeat their own work.

It’s much ado about nothing because learning to start the aircraft is very easy. It’s easier than all the stuff that follows. I didn’t know a single thing about aircraft at all when I first bought the A-10C and yet it never occurred to me to use the cheats.

I guess I have the perspective from 10 years ago when DCS had two planes. The plane is the game. The P-51D had no period map or other enemy aircraft or anything. It was just the plane to learn and study. So pressing keys to watch the game play itself seems a bit ridiculous.

Edited September 13, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Dangerzone]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

See the contradiction? ED builds full systems modules. Wags makes videos. But the game itself only includes one mission with a cold start. Sure users can make macros but it’s silly for the devs to defeat their own work.

I'm sorry SharpeXB - (I know I'm a bit tired this week and have a foggy mind, so it's probably me (- thanks for your patience ) , but you've lost me on the point you're trying to make.

All I can see from the points you've made is more options being given for people to play the way they want catering for a larger audience.

DCS is more than campaigns. DCS is more than MP. It caters for a wide variety of players and what they want to do - and I don't get why you seem to have issues or see contradictions that ED has chosen to give us all more options even if those options aren't always used by everyone.

Is your concern with the fact that there should be more cold-start campaigns or they shouldn't have cold start in DCS otherwise? 

The only way I can see a contradiction is if I ignore all possible aspects of DCS - and focus solely on the campaigns you're talking about (which as I understand it - most aren't developed by ED at all anyway - they're 3rd parties that develop the campaigns and ED sells them through the store), so even if I limit my view - I'm still struggling to see the point you're making about ED being contradictive.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Dangerzone

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I guess I have the perspective from 10 years ago when DCS had two planes. The plane is the game. The P-51D had no period map or other enemy aircraft or anything. It was just the plane to learn and study. So pressing keys to watch the game play itself seems a bit ridiculous.

I don't think there ever was such a time. Before DCS there was LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. Then there were stand-alone titles for the Hog and Shark under the "DCS Series" brand. Then when unified "DCS World" appeared, IIRC it had 2 free planes (P-51T and Su-25T), of which the Frogfoot has a 3-click startup (Power on, start left engine, start right engine); and it had 10 purchasable planes (8 in FC, Shark, Hog) with the majority of planes being 3-click engine-start (all except the 51T, Hog and Shark).

In any event, IMHO start-up procedures in flight sims are mostly to show off sim quality - and perhaps busywork to entertain some diehard enthusiasts. Since all you learn is to go through the motions without understanding why the sequence has that particular order (you are only taught what to do, not why), it's quite worthless. You are merely aping your instructor, not understanding the significance of the individual steps (why two magnet settings, what is priming, what to look for when using them, and why). That's also why it's so laughable when people go through start-up as fast as they can - they simply don't understand why start-up is done the way it is taught, and that doing it as quickly as you can is lethal. Unlike in pilot training, in DCS most people (me included - I barely know how how an APU works, and have no idea how to inspect or correctly handle an ejection seat) lack understanding of the underlying systems; you can't diagnose nor react correctly when something goes wrong, so you might as well skip the entire procedure or have an automaton do it (hence auto-start). 

I also find it strange that some people believe that starting an aircraft is the entire, or even a significant part of, the game. It's usually not, and since most people don't really know what they are doing, it doesn't contribute much except make some people believe they know the "secret handshake". They don't. They simply learned a neat trick by rote. "Good doggy!". No, the plane isn't the game. Flying planes is the game, having fun is the game (that may include staring up). In my mind, starting up a plane is about as much flying as starting up a race-car is racing it. It's a facet of a complex, beautiful mosaic, but not the center-piece

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

I don't think there ever was such a time.

In early 2012 when I got the A-10C the DCS lineup was that and the Ka-50. The P-51D and FC3 were added later that year. LOMAC was a different game.

[cfrag]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In early 2012 when I got the A-10C the DCS lineup was that and the Ka-50. The P-51D and FC3 were added later that year.

So what is your point? That the first couple of months of a full decade of DCS defined the entire game for you?

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

That's also why it's so laughable when people go through start-up as fast as they can

Like this guy? he’s faster than all of us because we only have one mouse  

https://youtu.be/yeij-YX9MdY

1 minute ago, cfrag said:

So what is your point? That the first couple of months of a full decade of DCS defined the entire game for you?

 

Well like I just said, yes

[cfrag]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Like this guy?

That guy knows what he is doing. He's taken years of training, day in and day out, to get where he is know, and he is on top of his profession.

You don't.

[=475FG= Dawger]

21 minutes ago, cfrag said:

That guy knows what he is doing. He's taken years of training, day in and day out, to get where he is know, and he is on top of his profession.

You don't.

It actually takes about 21 repetitions to get to the point he is at when learning a new airplane. After that it is just doing it often enough to keep the muscle memory.

 

Thank god for the autostart macro AND, most importantly, the ability as an end user to modify it.

It is a wonderful feature to be able to customize the autostart sequence in order to speed it up and to add all the post - start switch flipping and button pressing crap required to be ready to fight.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

I'm sorry SharpeXB - (I know I'm a bit tired this week and have a foggy mind, so it's probably me (- thanks for your patience ) , but you've lost me on the point you're trying to make.

All I can see from the points you've made is more options being given for people to play the way they want catering for a larger audience.

DCS is more than campaigns. DCS is more than MP. It caters for a wide variety of players and what they want to do - and I don't get why you seem to have issues or see contradictions that ED has chosen to give us all more options even if those options aren't always used by everyone.

Is your concern with the fact that there should be more cold-start campaigns or they shouldn't have cold start in DCS otherwise? 

The only way I can see a contradiction is if I ignore all possible aspects of DCS - and focus solely on the campaigns you're talking about (which as I understand it - most aren't developed by ED at all anyway - they're 3rd parties that develop the campaigns and ED sells them through the store), so even if I limit my view - I'm still struggling to see the point you're making about ED being contradictive.

Every game (or interactive entertainment software) by definition offers an enforced challenge. The “interactive” challenge part is what makes it engaging. Even if that requires some effort. Bypassing this and just watching the game play itself takes away the interactive part and just turns it into a movie. DCS must be the only game I’ve seen where players ask for the game to just play itself while they watch. Like Auto Start or the idea that there should be auto easy AAR. Sure you can cheat at solitaire but the solitaire game maker probably didn’t put a “win game” button right there on the screen for you. Plus for many modules the startup is just about most of what there even is to do with them given the lack of MP missions or campaigns etc. But I consider the $49 I spent on the P-51D a good entertainment value because I used everything it could do at the time. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by SharpeXB

[=475FG= Dawger]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Every game (or interactive entertainment software) by definition offers an enforced challenge. The “interactive” challenge part is what makes it engaging. Even if that requires some effort. Bypassing this and just watching the game play itself takes away the interactive part and just turns it into a movie. DCS must be the only game I’ve seen where players ask for the game to just play itself while they watch. Like Auto Start or the idea that there should be auto easy AAR. Sure you can cheat at solitaire but the solitaire game maker probably didn’t put a “win game” button right there on the screen for you. Plus for many modules the startup is just about most of what there even is to do with them given the lack of MP missions or campaigns etc. But I consider the $49 I spent on the P-51D a good entertainment value because I used everything it could do at the time. 

 

Starting the airplane isn't the "game".

Flying is the game.

The ability to start the airplane using the real world procedure is a by-product of creating a fully functioning cockpit, not the purpose of creating such a thing.

Of course, ED could produce lower priced versions of every module that allow you to start and taxi around but not fly.

They could call it "DCS for Crew Chiefs" and appeal to the vast audience of folks interested in simulating the engaging pre-flight phase.

DCS is a sandbox. It should have as few limits as possible to encompass a wide spectrum of desired gameplay.

 

[SharpeXB]

48 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Flying is the game.

I would say that every phase of flight and operating the aircraft is the game. It’s a sim after all. Arcade flying games tend to just feature flying. Sims feature every aspect. I think some players are too used to arcade games. 
Starting a mission in the air or hot on the runway thought makes more sense than auto-start, just watching it go by itself. The feature makes little sense for a game and even less for a sim. Some hardcore airliners sim aircraft won’t even air start, since that’s basically impossible IRL. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by SharpeXB